California small claims court question
I was recently a tenant in California. I have sued my former landlord in Small Claims court for the entirety of my security deposit, plus interest. I am looking for an assessment of who's likely to win at trial and by how much.
The facts: I rented the landlord's home. The landlord texted me to arrange a walk-through on the day of vacancy. We did not clean the house before we vacated. There was a lot of trash, and we left some stickers that our kid placed on one of the walls. Our child also drew on the carpet with a dry-erase marker. In the pre-move in walk-through, the carpet was listed as worn or stained in three locations, and we both signed that pre-move in checklist. The landlord has no receipts for the carpet's purchase date or installation, but I have a photo that shows the carpet is a minimum of 8 years old.
The deductions: My security deposit was $6,000. I expected a deduction for cleaning and trash removal. On day 17 after my vacancy, the landlord emailed me a list of claimed deductions that totaled to slightly more than $6,000. The landlord did not provide receipts and did not claim the emailed list of deductions was preliminary. Of the over $6,000 in claimed deductions, about $5,000 was for a replacement of the carpet.
The demand letter & lawsuit: On day 22 after vacancy, I sent my landlord a demand letter via mail & email for about $5,000 of the security deposit back. I specified three reasons why: (i) for the pre-vacancy walk-through, he didn't notify me of my right to a pre-vacancy walk-through via hand delivery or mail; (ii) for the list of deductions, he didn't send it via mail or hand delivery and he didn't provide receipts or any other documentation; (iii) for the carpet, he had not established that the carpet had any remaining useful life and therefore failed to show it had any replacement value.
My landlord responded via email and declined to return any of the security deposit. He sent a packet of estimates for work, but no receipts. He said that he could have billed me for more, but was being nice. He also included photos of what he claimed were the pre- and post-vacancy photos, but the dates didn't line up with our move-in and move-out dates. The photos of the post-vacancy were date stamped 8 days after the end of tenancy. I filed in small claims court two days after his response.
Since then: I have been in an ongoing dialogue with my landlord about the value of the carpet, since that's the bulk of the case. He has said he doesn't have documentation on its age and acknowledged that it's likely over 10 years old, but has said the carpet's age doesn't matter. He did provide an assessment of the carpet's condition from a carpet cleaning expert, but I called this expert and she said she (a) talked with the landlord 28 days after the end of tenancy, after the landlord had already claimed a full replacement deduction; and (b) didn't inspect the carpet in person.
Summary: I think I'm going to win at trial because my landlord didn't follow California law on anything at the end of my tenancy. He didn't send notices via mail or hand delivery. His list of expenses didn't include receipts or any other documentation. He still hasn't provided receipts for most of the claimed deductions - only his personal write-up. Even if a judge didn't rule based on his failure to follow California law, I think I will win on a refund of the carpet replacement cost. The carpet was at least 10 years old, the landlord has no receipts, and therefore, it seems the carpet has zero useful life remaining. If he had attempted to clean it, I could understand a deduction, but he basically decided not to try to clean it on his own - the only expert he consulted didn't see the carpet in person, and he contacted that person only after my demand letter.
What is your opinion on how this case will go at trial?